Literature DB >> 31844960

MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma: diagnostic performance and clinical relevance.

Frédéric E Lecouvet1, Dimitar Boyadzhiev2, Laurence Collette3, Maude Berckmans4, Nicolas Michoux2, Perrine Triqueneaux2, Vassiliki Pasoglou2, François Jamar4, Marie-Christiane Vekemans5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of MRI and 18F-FDG-PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement (BMI) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Two radiologists and two nuclear medicine specialists independently and blindly reviewed 84 pairs of MRI and PET/CT scans obtained in 73 MM patients. Readers assessed the presence and patterns of BMI. The best valuable comparator (BVC) for BMI was established by a panel review of all baseline and follow-up imaging, and biological and pathological information. Intra- and inter-reader agreement and correlation between MRI and PET/CT were assessed using the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (k) coefficient. Diagnostic performance of MRI and PET/CT in detecting BMI was evaluated from ROC characteristics. Association between imaging and biological, pathological, and clinical findings was assessed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Intra- and inter-reader agreement was very good for MRI (k = 0.90 [0.81; 1.00] and 0.88 [0.78; 0.98]). Intra- and inter-reader agreement was good for PET/CT (k = 0.80 [0.69; 0.91] and 0.71 [0.56; 0.86]). The sensitivity of MRI to detect BMI (97% [90%; 100%]) was significantly superior to that of PET/CT (76% [64%; 85%]) (p < 0.001). The specificity of MRI (86% [57%; 98%]) was lower than that of PET/CT (93% [66%; 100%]), without reaching statistical significance (p = 0.32). There was a strong correlation between decisions regarding patient management and PET/CT findings (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: MRI is significantly more sensitive than PET/CT to detect BMI in MM. Patient management is more strongly correlated with PET/CT findings. KEY POINTS: • MRI and PET/CT have very close diagnostic value for the detection of bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma. • MRI has a significantly higher sensitivity and better reproducibility. • PET/CT findings appear to have a higher impact on clinical decisions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone marrow; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiple myeloma; Neoplasms; Positron-emission tomography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31844960     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06469-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  40 in total

1.  Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Jens Hillengass; Kerstin Fechtner; Marc-André Weber; Tobias Bäuerle; Sofia Ayyaz; Christiane Heiss; Thomas Hielscher; Thomas M Moehler; Gerlinde Egerer; Kai Neben; Anthony D Ho; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Stefan Delorme; Hartmut Goldschmidt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma.

Authors:  Richard J Breyer; Michael E Mulligan; Stacy E Smith; Bruce R Line; Ashraf Z Badros
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system.

Authors:  Brian G M Durie
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-06-13       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Sonja Buhmann; H R Dürr; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Miriam A Bredella; Lynne Steinbach; Gary Caputo; George Segall; Randall Hawkins
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications.

Authors:  Ronald Walker; Bart Barlogie; Jeffrey Haessler; Guido Tricot; Elias Anaissie; John D Shaughnessy; Joshua Epstein; Rudy van Hemert; Eren Erdem; Antje Hoering; John Crowley; Ernest Ferris; Klaus Hollmig; Frits van Rhee; Maurizio Zangari; Mauricio Pineda-Roman; Abid Mohiuddin; Shmuel Yaccoby; Jeffrey Sawyer; Edgardo J Angtuaco
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-02-12       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Shaji K Kumar; Vincent Rajkumar; Robert A Kyle; Mark van Duin; Pieter Sonneveld; María-Victoria Mateos; Francesca Gay; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 52.329

8.  Assessing response of myeloma bone disease with diffusion-weighted MRI.

Authors:  C Messiou; S Giles; D J Collins; S West; F E Davies; G J Morgan; N M Desouza
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Assessing myeloma bone disease with whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: comparison with x-ray skeletal survey by region and relationship with laboratory estimates of disease burden.

Authors:  S L Giles; N M deSouza; D J Collins; V A Morgan; S West; F E Davies; G J Morgan; C Messiou
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Prognostic significance of tumor burden assessed by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma patients treated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Jennifer Mosebach; Sofia Shah; Stefan Delorme; Thomas Hielscher; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Stefan Schönland; Ute Hegenbart; Jens Hillengass
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 9.941

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS): strategies for practice implementation.

Authors:  Michael E Mulligan
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Prognostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sangwon Han; Sungmin Woo; Yong-Il Kim; Dok Hyun Yoon; Jin-Sook Ryu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnostic performance of 18 F-FDG-PET/CT compared to standard skeletal survey for detecting bone destruction in smouldering multiple myeloma: time to move forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth Hill; Esther Mena; Candis Morrison; Alexander Dew; Peter Choyke; Liza Lindenberg; Dickran Kazandjian
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 8.615

4.  The Diagnostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT Bone Marrow Uptake Pattern in Detecting Bone Marrow Involvement in Pediatric Neuroblastoma Patients.

Authors:  Jun Liu; Cuicui Li; Xu Yang; Xia Lu; Mingyu Zhang; Luodan Qian; Wei Wang; Ying Kan; Jigang Yang
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 3.161

5.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance and impact on management of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Olwen Westerland; Ashik Amlani; Christian Kelly-Morland; Michal Fraczek; Katherine Bailey; Mary Gleeson; Inas El-Najjar; Matthew Streetly; Paul Bassett; Gary J R Cook; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Immunotherapeutic and Targeted Approaches in Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Omar Nadeem; Yu-Tzu Tai; Kenneth C Anderson
Journal:  Immunotargets Ther       Date:  2020-10-14

Review 7.  Imaging of treatment response and minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: state of the art WB-MRI and PET/CT.

Authors:  Frederic E Lecouvet; Marie-Christiane Vekemans; Thomas Van Den Berghe; Koenraad Verstraete; Thomas Kirchgesner; Souad Acid; Jacques Malghem; Joris Wuts; Jens Hillengass; Vincent Vandecaveye; François Jamar; Olivier Gheysens; Bruno C Vande Berg
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 2.199

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.